PS4’s used game policy isn’t “because some other company is doing something”

The most dramatic moment of this year's E3 (and any E3 for the past few years, arguably) came when Sony's Jack Tretton took a jab at Microsoft's game licensing policies live on the press conference stage, forcefully declaring that disc-based games would work just like they always have on the PS4. But even though Sony's policies were marketed as a sharp contrast to Microsoft's, Sony President of Worldwide Studios Shuhei Yoshida said the decision was not made as a direct response. In fact, it was set in stone well before any Microsoft announcement.

"We didn't make a policy decision because some other company is doing something," Yoshida said in a roundtable discussion attended by Ars. "It's not that easy. Developing a system, it takes time and effort. We always planned [this]. We made this decision way back that we're going to treat the disc games like PS3 because there are lots of people who still like the ability to share games or lend in the office library. That's part of the way people enjoy games."

"We expect more people will gradually shift to all-digital, but it isn't going to happen overnight," Yoshida continued. "There are some parts of the world that still don't have robust Internet infrastructure. We want to do business worldwide, so it's very important to provide people what they want."

When the PS4 was announced in February, Yoshida made multiple statements suggesting that used retail games would not be an issue on the system. But at the time, he failed to be as forceful and clear on the issue as Sony was this week. Yoshida explained that the specific PR language surrounding this wasn't yet set in stone at that point, so he wanted to be careful with his wording.

Despite the massive reaction Sony's used game announcement got at the press conference, Yoshida said he wasn't surprised. "What surprised us was the other announcement [from Microsoft] and the enormous amount of questions and suggestions [it created] from other consumers."

That response led directly to the decision to stress Sony's used game position at the conference. "On my Twitter every day, I saw hundreds of tweets: 'Sony, do the right thing.' At that point, we decided at E3 we really have to explain this policy, this difference, so we planned in the script for Jack Tretton to explain that. [We added it] not as some kind of competing move, but in order to respond to people's questions. We really have to drive the point home."

The making of that viral video where Yoshida and Sony Developer Relations VP Adam Boyes demonstrate how simple it is to share PS4 games—now with more than 10.5 million YouTube views—was a little more spur-of-the-moment, however. "When Adam and I were waiting in the rehearsal the day before [the press conference], Adam came up with the idea, 'What if we make this video.' We had a video crew there, we shot it, the video crew added that music, we talked to [CEO] Andy House and he liked it."

Online costs and hardware pricing

Sony has received plenty of acclaim for keeping its used game policy stable with the PS4, but the company has been criticized for requiring a $50-per-year PlayStation Plus membership for online gameplay (though many other online media and sharing features are still available for free). Yoshida said this decision was simply a reflection of the increasing costs Sony is incurring for the PS4's many online features.

"It's very important for us that online features and services will be a big pillar of the PS4 experience," Yoshida said. "We already talked about the share button sharing, second screens, downloads... We will continue to invest in online infrastructures and new features and operations. That of course costs us money."

"If we continue the free service in online multiplayer as we have on the PS3 and Vita for the future, from a business standpoint, there's a constant pressure to find a way to save costs and still provide good service," he continued. "That conflicts with our vision of what we want to do with PS4 on the online side, so we decided, 'Let's ask the people that are most active to share some of the cost with us' so that we can invest in the very robust online services."

To me, that explanation sounded like Sony was asking those who use online multiplayer to essentially subsidize users who make use of the PS4's free online services. Yoshida diplomatically said that this was "one interpretation" but that he didn't consider it correct.

While Microsoft is loudly talking up the new interface and gameplay opportunities enabled by including a Kinect with every Xbox One system, Yoshida doesn't think the technology is quite ready to be so fully integrated into every single console.

"We know that natural user interface is very interesting and robust and creates the experience that's only possible with these technologies," Yoshida said. "This will continue to evolve. As far as I'm concerned, personally, it's early days of development in terms of tech. It's not ready or mature enough to be able to really be taken advantage of by all kinds of games and all kinds of [experiences] consumers would want to have. That's a decision we made."

Yoshida said he could foresee these kinds of audio and video interfaces being cheap enough and performing well enough to be a default part of every console. But not today. "It's like a touchscreen. Touch technology has been always there, like an [old] ATM where you [had] to push hard. [Back then] we wouldn't have expected that this touch technology would become so ubiquitous. It takes tech time to break through to this level to provide the universal benefit. As far as 2013, we believe it's not ready yet… but this tech gets better and better every year."

Not including a PlayStation Eye in the PS4 box also helps reduce costs for a system that will launch at $399, a full $100 less than the Xbox One. While Yoshida wouldn't tell me if the company was making a profit or a loss on the hardware at this price, he said that $399 "is the price point we always wanted to hit. We carefully looked at all the potential components and technology we put in PS4 [to reach that price point]. We believe that when PS4 comes out, it will be the most powerful system inside… but still we can provide it for $399."

Other tidbits

Sony said that developers will be able to make use of Xbox One-styled cloud calculations to power their games if they wish. However, Yoshida said that "out of all the calculations a game needs, maybe [only] this and that might be possible on the cloud side." Can developers really count on using this cloud computing if many PS4 players are offline? "We don't believe every title needs that. If your title needs an online connection to provide some online features, go for it."

While there are 140 titles currently in development for the PS4 and 100 expected to be released in the first year, Yoshida would only say that Sony is anticipating "many" for the launch of the system this holiday.

On the PS3, being able to play remotely on the Vita was an optional feature for developers to implement, often at the expense of working on other features. On the PS4? "Remote Play [just] happens. It's taken care of on the system side."

While PlayStation Plus is required to play most online multiplayer games on the PS4, free-to-play games like DC Universe Online and Planetside 2 will be fully playable even without a membership.

PlayStation Plus accounts are now more portable, so you can sign in on any number of systems to take advantage of the online multiplayer functions. However, only one PS4 at a time can use a single paid account. People with two PS4s in a single household will have to double up on their subscriptions.

Will the PS4 support the Oculus Rift? Yoshida wouldn't say for certain, but he did mention that "a couple of guys in our studios have the Kickstarted version. I tried it and I loved it... it's great."

I don't know what it is exactly about Yoshida, but I really like him. He seems really sincere. Not that I believe every word he says - he's a high-level executive, after all - but he really comes across well.

I am incredibly impressed with how Sony has handled this whole situation. With money to most likely only buy one system at launch, it's going to be hard for Microsoft to convince me (and many others) to spend an extra $100 on their system.

I don't know what it is exactly about Yoshida, but I really like him. He seems really sincere. Not that I believe every word he says - he's a high-level executive, after all - but he really comes across well.

He's one of the original playstation guys and they're basically doing what made the original playstation a success, make it something consumers and developers both want. Make it easy to develop on, spend a lot of time talking to developers about how to make a console, make it easy to play games on and everyone will come to the party.

When Sony were touting a while ago that they'd gone back to their roots to develop this console, I kind of figured it to be marketing bullshit. But they're obviously not idiots, it's a move that worked for them before and they're doing it again.

Everyone I know locally was on the fence over which system to order. Nearly a dozen of us have preordered the PS4 this week.

Its not that Microsoft has a bad product, it looks great and I think their online ecosystem is better. But, I don't know what demographic Microsoft has been targeting. It seems like it may only exist on a marketing slide somewhere.

I have never owned a Sony game system, but they spoke to me this week and spoke to my concerns.They won me for this generation.

I love the pricetag because I'm buying both and the cheaper the better, but I call bullshit on the fact that their policies and the way they presented them aren't a direct reaction to the XB1.

I agree with what he said in the interview, that's a matter of policy that you have to get worked out over a long period of time. It's not the kind of decision they can make and implement quickly just to react to Microsoft.

That said, the actual PR surrounding the announcement, and probably the presentation slides that were used in their E3 presentation, were 100% reaction to the XB1. I'm sure their PR guys saw an opportunity to win E3 and took full advantage of it.

Excellent. Best Buy is having a sale on the 12 month membership card so I'm tempted.

May as well. As long as you have the hard drive/memory card space for it, the regular updates to the "full game demos" (free games) have been worth it for me. It helps to have a PS3 and Vita (or at least PSP), but there's enough for either platform. Plus, the auto-updates are deceptively awesome.

I love the pricetag because I'm buying both and the cheaper the better, but I call bullshit on the fact that their policies and the way they presented them aren't a direct reaction to the XB1.

I agree with what he said in the interview, that's a matter of policy that you have to get worked out over a long period of time. It's not the kind of decision they can make and implement quickly just to react to Microsoft.

That said, the actual PR surrounding the announcement, and probably the presentation slides that were used in their E3 presentation, were 100% reaction to the XB1. I'm sure their PR guys saw an opportunity to win E3 and took full advantage of it.

Exactly, I'm sure their decision to stay with disk-based games and pricing was determined a while ago, but they can't deny that MS was a factor is making those decisions, and the presentation is clearly a direct shot at MS.

Sony like most any business may see the internet as a giant store. It's the shopping experience that matters. If you go the Microsoft route, it's a price club where you need membership and pay to even enter the store - or to use Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu Plus which you've already paid just to have access.

The Sony model is less restrictive, get in for free, use Netflix (which you already paid for anyway) and if you want access to more, then pay for more and get into the exclusive club that comes with freebies.

This leads to the question for Microsoft, will Microsoft end up back tracking and come up with an XBox One.1 like Windows 8.1 to fix policy decisions that led to a product actual consumers didn't overwhelmingly like? Will Yusif Medhi be shown the door like Sinofsky for betting the companies reputation on something consumers really didn't like?

Sony seems to have learned from their past mistakes. Their motives might not align over time, but at least for now, they are the good guy meme to Microsoft's bad guy meme. Sony lets you in the door, Microsoft charges you at the door to get in, then holds the right to when, where, how long you can be there and if you will ever be able to be entertained when they close the club?

This is Microsoft's Game of Thrones moment. They can be HBO and focus on business to business relationships or do what actual consumers want and focus on actual consumers...

Exactly, I'm sure their decision to stay with disk-based games and pricing was determined a while ago, but they can't deny that MS was a factor is making those decisions, and the presentation is clearly a direct shot at MS.

And they would've been fools not to take advantage of that opportunity. It wouldn't have shocked me if they had fumbled it, but they handled it quite well.

I'm not ordinarily a console gamer, but Sony is really making me want to buy a PS4.

Actually I am with you on that one. I dont really game as much anymore for the usual 'life gets busy' reasons. Since I normally have a decent(ish) laptop anyways thats becomes my go to for when I do see a title I want to play.

However I am liking the titles Sony will support and am starting to get an itch for better graphic fidelity on my gaming experience while at home.

Sony has done a bangup job on maintaing a clear message and good PR. The fact their model more closely resembles what users do today is a huge plus.

However one advantage the xbox appears to have is its 'share library with "family" members'

If you don't mind having your friends on sub-accounts this could be a very economical way to buy games going forward assuming everyone plays different games at different times. Its actually an interesting solution to sharing in a digital delivery world.

However I see two issues

1) Publishers are going to hate it. They already hate that they dont make money directly from used game sales. They really wont like the ease of sharing digital games. 2) Its possible Sony could adopt a similar setup if the idea proves popular and people dont mind the sharing of an account status. (PS+ Platinum?)

I wonder if xbox sharing would restrict other things though like if you are all on the same account, only one person can use Netflix at a time.

Edit: so someone cleared up a similar structure Sony had implemented in the past.

Thing is, I'l admit that MS isn't wrong in their belief that games are moving to an entirely digital era. I don't particularly care for that trend (I love having a tangible object to call my own), but I can see how it's going. Where I think MS's gamble has gone wrong, and where I think Sony is on the money with, is that we're not quite there yet.

I've been trading games with friends since the NES, and people like me aren't ready to give that up just yet. Multiply that with MS's draconian online requirements, various licensing loopholes, relatively flippant attitude on people's concerns, and total lack of real incentive to adopt all this, just completely alienates the XB1 for me.

I loved the picture with the "supports used games" slide, with the comment: Nintendo: we could have touted it as a feature?

Neither Sony nor Nintendo were talking about their used games policy during the first reveals because it likely never registered as a possible issue. You start designing a system and just assume it is obvious that things will work the way they have been working for more than twenty years now. Sony had an added incentive to get away from the subject during the first event, because they were removing free online play.

Once MS made their idiotic ideas public, they just pounced on the opportunity to score an easy win. Sony suddenly became this saviour of gamers world wide, by not being a douche, rather than delivering amazing news.

When I was watching the conference live I could see how some of the stuff MS is planning might be forward thinking and theoretically good, but I never believed it a likely scenario. Consoles are closed platforms and the Xbox One is the most controlled mainstream platform in history. If Microsoft could use the huge spending advantage over Sony, to lock in many great exclusive titles, win clearly and force Sony out of the gaming business, we would end up with a closely controlled online system, but with few of the advantages Steam provides. And I was really worried that Sony will also somehow try to fatten their bottom line and go with similar restrictions to suck up to publishers.

I was dreading the Verizon/AT&T scenario playing out in the gaming space. Where you have two companies dominating the market and they don't really compete between each other. Whenever Verizon does something to screw their customers, AT&T introduces an identical harmful policy within two weeks, instead of trying to lure customers away by giving them a better deal. As if the two companies were not interested in fighting for each others customers, but rather squeezing the existing ones as much as possible. And I really thought we would get that.

I'm pretty blase about corporations trying to position themselves as our friends and I'm not deluding myself into thinking that Sony is our BFF. It has made the right choice for consumers only because they think it will help them make more money. But that also means they deserve my money. Even if the Xbox One has a better lineup of titles, I am going to buy the PS4 because that is the only way I can send a message to both companies on how they should treat gamers. Sony is in it to make money, not to be your friend. But man... when I was watching that conference (started at 3 AM, local time) I let out a huge sigh of relief and then just started cheering with the people on the stream. And I thought I am way too cynical for that shit.

Thing is, I'l admit that MS isn't wrong in their belief that games are moving to an entirely digital era. I don't particularly care for that trend (I love having a tangible object to call my own), but I can see how it's going. Where I think MS's gamble has gone wrong, and where I think Sony is on the money with, is that we're not quite there yet.

This is an excellent point. I think even MS would probably agree with you.

The interesting thing is when we will get there. MS is betting that it will be soon enough that they will make up for any first or second year shortfalls with long term benefit. Sony is betting that the next generation of consoles will be used in similar enough ways to the current gen that they'll do better with incremental change.

I would be shocked if MS outsold Sony in the first 12 months of release. I'm much less sure about year 4, or year 6.

Sony already did a little more than just that: in the past, you could share a single PS3 account with 5 systems and all of them could download and play any game associated with the account. Simultaneously. Hell, I still have two shared accounts on my PS3 with a lot of games on each, and used to play online with all the other members a lot. But, not so long ago, Sony reduced the number of account users from 5 to 2, effectively killing the system.

Xbox One "family members" is roughly the same, but without simultaneous play and with 10 users.

Sony has done a bangup job on maintaing a clear message and good PR. The fact their model more closely resembles what users do today is a huge plus.

However one advantage the xbox appears to have is its 'share library with "family" members'

If you don't mind having your friends on sub-accounts this could be a very economical way to buy games going forward assuming everyone plays different games at different times. Its actually an interesting solution to sharing in a digital delivery world.

However I see two issues

1) Publishers are going to hate it. They already hate that they dont make money directly from used game sales. They really wont like the ease of sharing digital games. 2) Its possible Sony could adopt a similar setup if the idea proves popular and people dont mind the sharing of an account status. (PS+ Platinum?)

I wonder if xbox sharing would restrict other things though like if you are all on the same account, only one person can use Netflix at a time.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.